Chandra Padma Singh vs Suraj Enterprises 1 — 400137/2015
Case under Maharashtra Court Fees Act Section 6(h)a. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
Spl.C.S. - Special Civil Suit (Senior Division Judge)
CNR: MHRG040001832015
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
400291/2015
Filing Date
09-04-2015
Registration No
400137/2015
Registration Date
09-04-2015
Court
Civil Court Senior Division, Panvel
Judge
4-2nd CIVIL JUDGE S.D.PANVEL
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chandra Padma Singh
Adv. Amar Patwardhan
Respondent(s)
Suraj Enterprises 1
Hearing History
Judge: 4-2nd CIVIL JUDGE S.D.PANVEL
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 14-10-2025 | Evidence |
| 31-07-2025 | Evidence |
| 13-06-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: Chandra Padma Singh v. Suraj Enterprises (400137/2015) Outcome: Temporary injunction application ALLOWED (27 July 2015). The court granted plaintiff Singh's application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from creating third-party interests in Flat No. 503AB until final suit decision. Singh had booked the flat for ₹17,82,000 in 2009, paid ₹10,32,000, but defendants failed to deliver possession or execute conveyance deed due to financial and technical problems. Defendants undertook not to create third-party rights and promised refund; court found prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss favoring plaintiff, thus protecting his interest pending final resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Chandra Padma Singh v. Suraj Enterprises (400137/2015) Outcome: Temporary injunction application ALLOWED (27 July 2015). The court granted plaintiff Singh's application for temporary injunction restraining defendants from creating third-party interests in Flat No. 503AB until final suit decision. Singh had booked the flat for ₹17,82,000 in 2009, paid ₹10,32,000, but defendants failed to deliver possession or execute conveyance deed due to financial and technical problems. Defendants undertook not to create third-party rights and promised refund; court found prima-facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss favoring plaintiff, thus protecting his interest pending final resolution. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts